Term: 2007
Docket: 06-637
Board Of Education Of The City School District Of The City Of New York v. Tom F., On Behalf Of Gilbert F., A Minor Child
- Pro
06-637 BD. OF ED. OF CITY OF NEW YORK V. TOM F. DECISION BELOW: 193 Fed. Appx. 26 THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT. JUSTICE KENNEDY TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 2/26/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: Does the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, stating that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permits tuition reimbursement where a child has not previously received special education from a public agency, stand in direct contradiction to the plain language of 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) which authorizes tuition reimbursement to the parents of a disabled child “who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency”? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-0566
In the 2007 case of Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Tom F., on behalf of Gilbert F., a minor child, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tom F., who was seeking reimbursement for his son's private school tuition under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court held that parents can be reimbursed for private special education services even if their child has never received special education services from a public school district before. This decision overturned an earlier ruling by a lower court which stated that IDEA only covered students who had previously been enrolled in public schools and were then moved to private institutions due to inadequate support or resources at their previous institution.
In the dissenting opinion for Board of Education v. Tom F., Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not allow parents to seek reimbursement for private school tuition if their child has never received special education services from a public agency. He contended that IDEA was designed to ensure collaboration between schools and parents, and allowing unilateral decision-making by parents undermines this goal. Furthermore, he pointed out that such an interpretation could lead to financial strain on public schools as they may be required to reimburse wealthy families who choose expensive private institutions over free public options without even attempting a partnership with the school district first. This would divert resources away from children in need of special education services within the system, which contradicts IDEA's purpose.
